Recs vs Pros the WA fight

[bugman]

Gents (and ladies)

There was a very good story on Landline at the weekend outlining the pro vs rec fishing debate in Western Australia. The piece used the Australian Salmon fishery as a microcosm for the overall fishery with lots of pressure over there to make the salmon a rec only species.

It's interesting because the recs are highly organised over there and have actually won a couple of battles with the State pollies for local areas and species.


The whole transcript can be viewed here

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/conte...5/s1344427.htm

But the show will be repeated at 11:00am today (monday) if anyone gets a chance to read it.

There was lots of stuff in it but one quote from a pro fisherman, Alan Miles, stood out.

A recent decision to shut down commercial crabbing near Busselton was, he argues, a victory for politics over science.
"I guess the crab thing has really brought out that we have gone from sustainable fisheries, whereby we use research data to determine the biomass and then we made sure we're fishing that biomass at a level that was sustainable, to hard cold political decisions," Mr Miles said.
"Now the hard cold political decisions are not going to look after the fisheries of the future, all they're going to do is look after a few votes and one thing or another on the day," he said. "I just feel that is wrong, I think, you know, the WA Government should give a very strong commitment to its research people."

Being invloved on a smale scale with fisheries policy - I actually think this trend is a disturbing.

Your thoughts.

Bugman

[Gorilla_in_Manila]

Hmmm ..... shut down the Aussie fishers to buy votes, and fail to police the illegal foreigners.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...4/s1347166.htm
Sounds normal unfortunately.
[smiley=end.gif] [smiley=wut.gif]
Cheers
Jeff

[dazza]

hi brett,
just watched the piece, i wouldn't have expected any other response.
speak to a trawler operator and they will tell you they fish in a sustainable manner as well, yes they are making an effort ie teds, and cod end bycatch exclusion devices etc, but when it all boils down, when you drag a chain across the ocean floor it causes a great deal of damage.but that is a whole different debate.

comparing the crab fishery and the salmon fishery is comparing apples with oranges.
they are not looking to close the fishery because of stock concerns. they are looking to close the fishery based on pure ecomomic benefit to the community. i don't know the reasons behing the crab fishery changes.

with the salmon worth 45 cents per kilo on the beach, the program didn't bother to tell us what they were worth per kilo if caught by rec fisho's. they probably don't have any data but i recon $10 to $20 per kilo would be around the mark. pretty hard to argue when a resource is being wasted to such an extent.

brett, in regards to your last line,
are not the wa government trying to utilise the resource to its maximum potential- which in this case is tourism/rec fishing. in this case they are not worried about the biomass, they are worried about you and i going somwhere else, because everytime a school pokes its head up a pro shoots a net.?
could you elaborate on your concerns?
cheers
dazza

[bugman]

GDay Dazza,

I think it's the general political trend that seems to be entering fisheries management across the board at the expense of scientifc data.

It happens on both side of the debate - the GBR closures is a classic with a percentage number determined on paper and the areas filled in later to match. Spotty mackeral in Queensland is another where scientific evidence and assesment was ignored by the Minister who made a decision based on a political sensitivities at the time.

The WA salmon fishery is the same - scientists say they're plenty of fish there for both the recs and the pros but seeing tonnes of fish dragged onto popular beaches in front of fisherman/tourists etc makes it a politically sensitive decision.

Even if it does benefit the rec angler I don't see how we can argue against someone like GBRMPA on one hand to "show us your facts" and then accept these "gifted decisions" on the other.

The reason I bought this up is because I can see similarities with the Tailor fishery in Qld - although the stock base here is probably not as healthy.

We employ scientists at fishery management level to work a lot of these things out or at least provide the facts. I think I'd prefere to continue down that track.

Bugman

[dazza]

hi bugman,
i agree with what you are saying. as rec fisho's we want our cake and want to eat it too.
dare i say it maybe the decision makers are starting to look at the big picture, and take it into account and use a bit more info than just pure data, although i doubt it. in the end whatever wins votes will prevail.
the tailor fishery is a very good example, how many squillions of dollars is the recreational value of this fishery. bloody lot more than cat food and fish meal. but who has more impact, thousands of rec fisho's or a dozen pro's i guess the debate could go on forever. even though the two co exist
i don't envy the job's of people when it comes to making these decisions
i personally believe the gbr stuff is a bit different, the pointy ond of the green movement had one agenda and that was a done deal no matter what research was saying.
you have rased some good points, will be interesting to hear others views
cheers
dazza

[Gazza]

The reason I bought this up is because I can see similarities with the Tailor fishery in Qld - although the stock base here is probably not as healthy.

We employ scientists at fishery management level to work a lot of these things out or at least provide the facts. I think I'd prefere to continue down that track.

Bugman

Mate ,NSW has banned "netting" of Tailor ,but not in Q'ld.... ???
(don't know what the "ban" was based on , but would be nice for Qld too )

Also ,I've heard some fishery guys have noted there is less of the larger fish ,so considering to "increase" the minsize.....which to me, seems strange, as that would make sure that "only" bigger ones would be kept. ??? ,and be a self-fulfilling? prophecy.

[INDULGENCE]

Hi
I visited Bunbury back in the 80s to fish a competition and was alarmed at a sign we found on a boat ramp.
The basis of the message was " please dont travel or fish in the schools of salmon during the months of March April & May as it splits up the school and makes them harder for the pros to net"
How have we changed.
I believe we cant have enough data (leave the pollies out) before making closures or bans,if only a percentage of the rec fishing dollar was paid to the right people.

Wally

[bugman]

Gazza,

You probably won't like this but I was given a briefing by Qld's leading scientist on Tailor research - he's been doing the studies anyway.

Something like 60-70% of total tailor catch is one year old or younger.

If we have one really bad year where the tailor don't breed for whatever reason - the next year's biomass would be decimated.

Bugman

PS I've got the same sticker but you've got to try and be impartial.

[Gazza]

Something like 60-70% of total tailor catch is one year old or younger.

No worries Bugman 8)
Nothing against letting fish spawn for a year or 2

Mate ,'Bream' included ,.....whatever size ??? that works out to be....err...scientifically, of course